5 Rules or Interactions that I feel need to be changed or clarified in the final product


General Discussion


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll go ahead and mention some things that I've noticed (that either other forum posters or the developers have not) that, if not clarified or changed in the final release, can have devastating consequences that post-printing cannot easily fix.

5. Lockpicking:
The rules for lockpicking in PF1 were quite simple. You spent some time, made a check (assuming you had ranks in the skill), and based on the results of that check you either succeeded, failed (and need to retry again), or really messed up (and can't continue any further rolls). Nice, simple, and easy. Now, the lockpicking rules for PF2? Completely different from the previous way of it being done, and counterintuitive to keeping the game simple and immersive. You have to make numerous checks (3-5) with increasingly harder DCs in order to accomplish what originally took a single roll in PF1. Imagine if we took this concept to things like Crafting (complex) Items, Diplomacy debating, and other such elements of the game; the gameplay would screech to a halt with player unhappiness on the account of one instance of bad rolling (which is inevitable unless shenanigans are in place) when the probability of getting all successful rolls is extremely difficult. In fact, such a concept already technically exists in the 2nd part of Doomsday Dawn, where an entire party has the option to use Stealth, and all must succeed to bypass an encounter. Can you imagine having 4 or more completely different characters being able to utilize a single skill with the same exact chance of success? I think not. In addition, the difficulty of locks now being exponential instead of linear without a lockpicker getting a similar advantage in the way of proficiency tiers or skill feats (A skill feat to add an additional dice for lockpicking would be a nice, even if required, feat) is beyond unfair and can easily favor the lock. Plot devices and treasure being behind nearly impossible-to-pick locks means a story (nor its characters) can't reasonably progress. Conversely, if the DCs are still too easy, you're now making players roll dice 3-5 times for the same reason that PF1 only required a single dice roll. It doesn't seem like it eats much time, but it does add up if players have to use lockpicking skills on a regular basis, and it creates unfun snags in an adventure. While I am optimistic of Paizo making a motion to change this, nothing has been said one way or the other on the matter, and while I'm not asking for an answer, I'm merely bringing this concept up as a means of conveying information in the event it hasn't been looked at.

4. The Quickened Condition:
While it's quite clear what Slowed does (removes how many actions you have), Quickened being as restrictive as it is doesn't make much sense when we consider other actions on the table. As it stands, Quickened only lets me make an additional Stride or Strike action. What about performing actions that utilize the Stride or Strike functions, such as Running Reload or Sudden Charge? Or Power Attack, Swipe, or several other Strike-like functions? And that's not including things like re-gripping two-handed weapons, drawing weapons or shields or other items, jumping, crawling, and so on that I apparently can't do while Quickened, but I can runStride or attackStrike an additional time? While I understand the biggest reason Quickened is worded this way is to prevent spellcasting abuse, this can easily be solved by implementing a "This condition does not work for performing Rituals, performing the Cast a Spell activity, or Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting, or Material Casting actions" clause. Granted, some things are purposefully restrictive (such as the Monk's 20th level ability, and Speed Runes on weaponry), those already have specific notations as to what this additional action can be used for. Specific Trumps General is already a core feature of this game (and is one of PF1 as well); let's put more of it to use so that Quickened can function a lot better than what it does now.

3. Magic Item Prices and Limitations:
The pricing for items as a whole do not seem to add up appropriately. I suppose to some, it makes sense in the manner that higher level magic items are exponentially more valuable, but this does exacerbate the Christmas Tree effect, something which is of great contention for players and GMs (and even the developers have stated their dislike for it). However, there are contradicting elements at work here (and no, I don't mean Resonance, which is now gone). For starters, consumables of a much cheaper cost and expendable use, combined with this exponential gold hike, creates situations where having, just as one example, twenty-five Standard Cloaks of Elvenkind equate to a single Greater Cloak of Elvenkind. Before anyone says that's unrealistic, what about something that isn't linked to a limited slot, such as jewelry? Someone running around with numerous Rings of Wizardry can be casting dozens of lower level spell slots (which can be solid for buffs in the higher levels based on spell list), or Rings of Counterspelling for counteracting any bad spell being thrown at you (though it is a little difficult and time-consuming to prepare them all). Building upon that, Item Slots have been a thing since 3.X, and perhaps even earlier than that by "reasonable" standards, and to a point, this has not changed in PF2. You cannot reasonably wear multiple headbands, boots, gloves, etc. However, as I've stated prior, items such as jewelry, or other similarly non-intrusive equipment, can be used effectively unlimited. Sure, a character running around with 20 rings or 10 necklaces sounds silly, but the fact of the matter is that, for each slot that I can put as a ring or necklace, defeats the purpose of slots like cloaks or boots. Why on earth would I have Boots of Speed when I can have a Ring of Speed instead? Other than "Because the GM says so," which doesn't hold much water in a setting sense, I'm not convinced that these oddball slot items should even exist. The joke that Blingfinder will be a thing is not a laughing matter to me. While some very niche characters can function in this way, min-maxing would suggest this sort of behavior to be the norm, and I sincerely hope there is something we can do to stop both this behavior, and the counterproductivity of gold hiking and consumable shenanigans (trinkets fall under this concept too, in case I wasn't clear).

2. Exploration Mode/Table 10-2:
As a GM, I've rarely had to use or reference these rules simply because they do not add much to the game that I haven't already utilized from PF1. In fact, the only time I've ever referenced these rules were when the rules told me to do so for certain things (like Bardic Performance and Treat Wounds in Table 10-2, and for certain playtest adventure mechanics). While copy-pasting from PF1 won't do, I am of the firm belief that these rules are extremely restrictive and cannot appropriately encompass what players can accomplish while adventuring. The mode itself seems to be a way to guide newbie GMs, but in my opinion having such restrictive applications (which are actually prone to shenanigans) which are then supported by a table with numerous numbers of different tiers and levels that are completely subject to GM interpretation creates a lot more bad than good for both veteran and newbie GMs alike. Exploration Mode should serve much more as a guideline and less as a codification. (I am aware Table 10-2 is being heavily re-written, but I felt a need to mention is as it has tied to Exploration Mode and several player mechanics as a result.)

1. Flight:
This has been an issue for the longest time, and I was hoping that this edition would make it at least a little easier. To my dismay, it has not. Our group has played Part 4 of Doomsday Dawn and we have had 3 instances where Flight rules have been called into play, and each time the rule has been done differently. The first was facing a bunch of avians that grab ground-dwellers and drop them on the ground after flying some height. In this case, the fall was ruled instantaneously, and a character who activated a flight ability did not get any chance to use it, even though logically the character should be able to react to being released from the air (and no longer being constricted). In a future fight, a flying creature was slain. In this case, the creature had no actions to spend so it fell automatically. Later on in that fight, another flying creature that was knocked unconscious, but was brought back to consciousness before its turn took place, was able to still maintain flight by being conscious despite the two previous rulings (one of instant falling, one because of not having actions to maintain flight). I am absolutely 100% chalking this up to inconsistent rulings on the GMs part, but I seriously don't know which one of those scenarios is correct, and in each of those cases, knowing exactly how the rules for flight (and when it ceases to be, and what happens when this takes place) was crucial in determining what the players and NPCs could do moving forward. In the first case, not getting flight led to an unconscious PC that had to spend Hero Points to survive (and save other characters too), even if they could just spend an action to maintain flight. In the second case, a PC treated like this could be saved from potential falling damage if they are in this scenario. In the third case, as a healing PC I could just bring an ally back to life that is flying so they can continue flight. All of these feel mutually exclusive to me, and I'm almost certain not many people paid too much attention to these rules (probably because they didn't show up for their tables), because this is probably the only time I've seen it brought up in these forums anywhere.

So, those are the 5 biggest things I'm looking for PF2 to change/clarify before I consider it ready for me to fully enjoy. If anyone has any additional information or input they can shed on the matter, by all means. Just keep it relevant to the points I've mentioned and don't derail the topic with edition warring or insulting badwrongfun posts, please.

**EDIT** Applied band-aids to wall-of-text syndrome. Should be easier on the eyes to read coherently now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I'll go ahead and mention some things that I've noticed (that either other forum posters or the developers have not) that, if not clarified or changed in the final release, can have devastating consequences that post-printing cannot easily fix.

** spoiler omitted **...

5. Yeah lockpicking is at a weird place. To be fair, I'm still not sure how to make lockpicking fun. Personally I think lowering the DCs and instead relying on proficiency gating might be a good idea.

4. Quick (as a general rule) doesn't have any of these restrictions you mention. The condition mentions that many affects which grant it have specific restrictions. The condition itself doesn't have them.

3. This feels pretty premature to be concerned about. Resonance served as a pretty good restriction to using lots of little items instead of one big one and I'm pretty sure Jason said the invested item restriction would be surviving in some form or another.

2. I think you're right that not every GM needs Exploration mode rules, but it does a reasonable job of filling in the gaps for the people that do. I'm struggling to see the connection with table 10-2 to be honest.

1. In your first example you ABSOLUTELY should have been able to use the Arrest Fall reaction. That's what it is for. When a flier falls when they are knocked unconscious (and how it interacts with hero points) could use some clearing up though. I've run it that they fall on their turn under the idea that stuff is happening simultaneously and the fly action they spend on their turn was supposed to keep them up for the entire round. I don't know if this is actually supported by the rules though.


Here's an idea for lock picking.

The picker is required to roll two rolls to succeed, a thievery and a perception, but here's the twist, the rest of the party (that is present obviously) has to roll stealth, each failure (and other GM fiats) gives a penalty to the perception roll.

If the picker fails either roll, he starts again.

You obviously should treat the DC's as 5 lower because you are basically running with 5e's disadvantage.

I just think this adds moment where the rogues turns to the rest of the party and tells them to be quiet, nice and thematic.


I agree with most of the points. Some of them were you misunderstanding the rules a little bit, like Captain Morgan pointed out. I'm pretty split on number 2. I do think a new table 10-2 that's simplified and explicitly not a treadmill (the old one wasn't if you used it correctly but it was very hard to get to this interpretation) will be beneficial. However, I do agree with you, Darksol, on Exploration Mode. If it was just a bunch of ruling tips for what happens when you sneak while exploring, look for things, etc., it would probably be fine, but exploration tactics are just so restrictive and odd, I don't really think that they should exist.


I agree that lockpicking could use some work but I'm not sure where the OP is getting the idea that the DC increases throughout the process of picking the lock ("You have to make numerous checks (3-5) with increasingly harder DCs in order to accomplish what originally took a single roll in PF1.") or that lockpicking requires consecutive successes ("...the gameplay would screech to a halt with player unhappiness on the account of one instance of bad rolling (which is inevitable unless shenanigans are in place) when the probability of getting all successful rolls is extremely difficult.").


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Has lockpicking ever been fun in any game ever? It seems like the best thing we can do with it is "make it simple".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only way I can see making lockpicking fun is to say you have X amount of tries before a trap goes off and poisons you or something.
Otherwise, keep rolling until you get it (outside of combat, at least).


I am tempted to run with my idea, only because my players are more than likely to purposefully crit fail to screw each other over.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I'll go ahead and mention some things that I've noticed (that either other forum posters or the developers have not) that, if not clarified or changed in the final release, can have devastating consequences that post-printing cannot easily fix.

** spoiler omitted **...

5. Yeah lockpicking is at a weird place. To be fair, I'm still not sure how to make lockpicking fun. Personally I think lowering the DCs and instead relying on proficiency gating might be a good idea.

4. Quick (as a general rule) doesn't have any of these restrictions you mention. The condition mentions that many affects which grant it have specific restrictions. The condition itself doesn't have them.

3. This feels pretty premature to be concerned about. Resonance served as a pretty good restriction to using lots of little items instead of one big one and I'm pretty sure Jason said the invested item restriction would be surviving in some form or another.

2. I think you're right that not every GM needs Exploration mode rules, but it does a reasonable job of filling in the gaps for the people that do. I'm struggling to see the connection with table 10-2 to be honest.

1. In your first example you ABSOLUTELY should have been able to use the Arrest Fall reaction. That's what it is for. When a flier falls when they are knocked unconscious (and how it interacts with hero points) could use some clearing up though. I've run it that they fall on their turn under the idea that stuff is happening simultaneously and the fly action they spend on their turn was supposed to keep them up for the entire round. I don't know if this is actually supported by the rules though.

The problem with proficiency gating is that it means someone in the party has to be good at it for the story to progress, or for loot to be awarded. PCs will miss important story information or be considered under WBL or expected wealth projections simply because of lacking Thievery. Which might be intended, but when the game accounts for that sort of stuff within the system, it creates additional problems, similar to how everyone needed to put ranks in Perception or has to buy the Big 6 since again, that's what the game parameters expect. Or, in every single case of a locked door or chest, a key would be required. (Which makes sense logically; people don't generally lock stuff without a key unless they just want to keep something sealed to never be open, which more often than not is not done with a physical key.) I do agree proficiency should be a factor here, which is why one solid suggestion is to make proficiency a major deterrent and not an outright limiter. That is to say, if someone of lesser proficiency attempts a check, they roll an additional dice and take the worse for each tier of proficiency lower than what's listed. Similarly, if they're better than its proficiency, they get additional dice for the better based on how many tiers above. This makes proficiency matter without it being an outright eliminator.

I think the only additional action without restriction is the 3 Hero Point action. Again, a lot of those limitations reference specific actions that aren't interchangeable with other, easier actions. Haste, which is the most common form of Quickened, states you only get Stride or Strike. Why can't I draw a weapon or item? Why can't I drink a potion? Why can't I raise my shield? There are numerous actions that I can't take even if I wanted simply because of these restrictions, even though the intent of the condition (to prevent spellcasting shenanigans) can still be employed with a simple clause described above.

Putting a hard limit on magic items sounds counterproductive to the fact that this edition has much more freedom in the mechanics of what items you benefit from. I mean, in this edition I can wear more than 2 rings, but I only get 10 items to benefit from "just because"? (I'm sure there will be a better in-universe explanation, which could potentially make more sense, but the odds of it being appropriate are very slim.)

I put them together in regards to relevance. I've rarely used both exploration mode rules and table 10-2 except for when the books specifically referenced those subjects. Guess that means every adventure I've ever ran has been houseruled to hell and back, and I can't reasonably treat my input to the surveys as accurate or helpful to how the game was originally intended to run. Now do we see the problem? I'm playing a completely different game from someone who does use those rules to the T, and the fact of the matter is that me (and my group) find the game much more smooth and fun to play. I suppose on that front it's relevant, but it simultaneously wasn't feedback they were asking for, which still defeats the purpose.

This is actually good to know, because I didn't even realize there was such a reaction to take. I am curious how this goes with unconsciousness to consciousness though, since if I remember correctly, don't you lose all actions and reactions when you become unconscious? If I had the answer to this question, then I'll know how each scenario was supposed to play out, and helps for future reference. (It's hard enough remembering that flying creatures need to spend an action each turn to maintain flight. As a tangent to Point #3, you couldn't technically do this with a Quickened action, which further highlights any issues with the condition as it's presented.)

I do have an honorable mention to bring up a little later though, so stay tuned for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I'll go ahead and mention some things that I've noticed (that either other forum posters or the developers have not) that, if not clarified or changed in the final release, can have devastating consequences that post-printing cannot easily fix.

** spoiler omitted **...

5. Yeah lockpicking is at a weird place. To be fair, I'm still not sure how to make lockpicking fun. Personally I think lowering the DCs and instead relying on proficiency gating might be a good idea.

4. Quick (as a general rule) doesn't have any of these restrictions you mention. The condition mentions that many affects which grant it have specific restrictions. The coitself doesn't have them.

3. This feels pretty premature to be concerned about. Resonance served as a pretty good restriction to using lots of little items instead of one big one and I'm pretty sure Jason said the invested item restriction would be surviving in some form or another.

2. I think you're right that not every GM needs Exploration mode rules, but it does a reasonable job of filling in the gaps for the people that do. I'm struggling to see the connection with table 10-2 to be honest.

1. In your first example you ABSOLUTELY should have been able to use the Arrest Fall reaction. That's what it is for. When a flier falls when they are knocked unconscious (and how it interacts with hero points) could use some clearing up though. I've run it that they fall on their turn under the idea that stuff is happening simultaneously and the fly action they spend on their turn was supposed to keep them up for the entire round. I don't know if this is actually supported by the rules though.

The problem with proficiency gating is that it means someone in the party has to be good at it for the story to progress, or for loot to be awarded. PCs will miss important story information or be considered under WBL or expected wealth projections simply because of lacking Thievery....

5. So the thing about lock picking is it usually only matters if you can't just break the lock open for stealth reasons. Unless there is a mechanism that damages the loot when you break open the container, there's no reason you need to pick the lock to get past it. Given how the lockpicking rules currently work, your bonus + rolling mostly just determines how long it takes you to pick a lock because you can keep trying with a bag of nails for forever.

Making a master of thievery capable of stealthily raiding the enemy treasury where a normal party would. Have to fight their way through and either steal the key off a dead body or noisily break down the door would be consistent with the fail forward principle paizo is striving for. And honestly, letting someone's skill increase matter and skipping pointless repetitive rolling seems like a good idea to me.

4. Either you're shifting the goalposts here or your original point wasn't stated clearly. Your original point reads as "why does the Quicken condition prevent me from taking specific actions when individual applications of it already limits me to them." Which wasn't true. Now you seem to be saying "why don't we have a general rule instead of making individual applications so restrictive." Can you clarify what your actual intent is here?

At any rate, it feels worth mentioning that you CAN still draw a weapon or drink a potion while Hasted. Provided you are using at least one of your 4 actions to stride or strike, you can use your other 3 actions for whatever you want. So this complaint doesn't actually seem to matter very much. In practice Haste is actually much more flexible than first edition, for example.

3. Again, I think I'm missing your point. You seemed to be complaining that people would deck themselves out in too many items, but now you say that's all well and good?

2. I don't think either of these tools was heavily utilized in Doomsday Dawn. DD didn't have that much exploration and it pretty much handed you almost of the DCs beyond stuff like "what do I need to hit for treat wounds for this particular party." So again, I think I'm missing your point. Neither of these seems like it could have especially skewed your survey data, and frankly if it did I'm not sure why you are faulting the rules for you choosing to ignore them?


Actual intent is the second. It also creates issues where players feel like they need to map out their actions in a certain way when they shouldn't, as you've demonstrated. It also still doesn't solve its interactions with flight or other non-Stride movement.

What I'm saying is that the design concepts are counterintuitive to one another. Allowing freedom in the form of slots (which exacerbates Christmas Tree effect) while restricting the raw number of items (which in turn limits Christmas Tree effect) really begs the question of why/what's the point. Item slots, WBL, and action economy already served as big limitations on the Christmas Tree effect. If players/parties had vastly different loadouts compared to one another, the systems in place would already balance them out from one another. Why have 25 Necklaces of Fireballs or 30 Rings of Counterspell over a more appropriate loadout is not only super cornercase shenanigans that is borderline impossible, but also not a credible argument to fairly demonstrate how bad the Christmas Tree effect is based on how said Necklaces work in relation to combat.

There are at least 2 known DD instances which specifically call for Table 10-2 or Exploration rules, both of which referred to climbing or finding cliffsides.

I didn't houserule in DD, (misinterpretated some rules, perhaps,) but these two elements alone does demonstrate that at a table that doesn't use those rules will be vastly different from one that does, and IMO it will be for the worse if it's left in place. A lot of times, no rules > bad rules.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


There are at least 2 known DD instances which specifically call for Table 10-2 or Exploration rules, both of which referred to climbing or finding cliffsides.

Were there? I can't remember that and a quick search for 10-2 and going through all the instances of Table doesn't show it.


Malk_Content wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


There are at least 2 known DD instances which specifically call for Table 10-2 or Exploration rules, both of which referred to climbing or finding cliffsides.

Were there? I can't remember that and a quick search for 10-2 and going through all the instances of Table doesn't show it.

The beginning and half way through Part 2 requires referencing exploration rules to properly resolve what happens, and there is a minor rule in Part 5 referring to the DC of a cliffside being a level-based challenge (AKA a Level 9 Hard challenge). I know this because I specifically GM'd these parts (and played in all the other parts except 6 for time constraint reasons).

In my home game, only treat wounds technically requires referencing Table 10-2, and even then I simplified it to 15 + level for a DC, which makes needing to reference a giant table with unwanted arbitrary numbers a wasteful hassle.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Actual intent is the second. It also creates issues where players feel like they need to map out their actions in a certain way when they shouldn't, as you've demonstrated. It also still doesn't solve its interactions with flight or other non-Stride movement.

What I'm saying is that the design concepts are counterintuitive to one another. Allowing freedom in the form of slots (which exacerbates Christmas Tree effect) while restricting the raw number of items (which in turn limits Christmas Tree effect) really begs the question of why/what's the point. Item slots, WBL, and action economy already served as big limitations on the Christmas Tree effect. If players/parties had vastly different loadouts compared to one another, the systems in place would already balance them out from one another. Why have 25 Necklaces of Fireballs or 30 Rings of Counterspell over a more appropriate loadout is not only super cornercase shenanigans that is borderline impossible, but also not a credible argument to fairly demonstrate how bad the Christmas Tree effect is based on how said Necklaces work in relation to combat.

There are at least 2 known DD instances which specifically call for Table 10-2 or Exploration rules, both of which referred to climbing or finding cliffsides.

I didn't houserule in DD, (misinterpretated some rules, perhaps,) but these two elements alone does demonstrate that at a table that doesn't use those rules will be vastly different from one that does, and IMO it will be for the worse if it's left in place. A lot of times, no rules > bad rules.

I guess I'm just struggling to see the issue. Are people actually getting confused about they can do with haste, for example?

And again, on the Christmas tree effect, I am missing the problem. Slots got the axe because they felt arbitrary and game-y. The goal was never to allow 100% free access to all magic items. It was to provide a limitation that made more sense than "I can only wear two magic rings because reasons." Having your body's total tolerance for magic made a lot more sense.

And exponential item cost has pretty much always been a thing and probably always will be. I don't understand why its a problem.


It has come up several times in play because players believe they have to map out what actions can be done in what order, and a limited bonus action creates numerous complications and player paralysis.

A person with Haste (or a Speed weapon) can't, for example, draw a potion, drink, and Power Attack in the same turn, but can Strike twice instead, which is baffling.

Similarly, a flying spellcaster can maintain concentration on a spell, and cast another spell, but can't use this bonus action for Flight (so they fall). But if they were on the ground, they could move just fine, so what gives here?

There are numerous instances where a listed limitation makes no sense in regards to the Quickened condition, which is what needs fixing.

Again, this creates a paradigm where there is no point in having magical boots when I can just replicate those effects in a jewelry item. Boots of Speed is now obsoleted by Ring/Necklace of Speed, which is precisely why the "you can only wear 2 rings and 1 necklace" rule was in place: To make non-jewelry slot items more valuable. It's the same reasoning why, in PF1, you couldn't TWF with spikes and a greatsword; arbitrary balancing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Again, this creates a paradigm where there is no point in having magical boots when I can just replicate those effects in a jewelry item. Boots of Speed is now obsoleted by Ring/Necklace of Speed, which is precisely why the "you can only wear 2 rings and 1 necklace" rule was in place: To make non-jewelry slot items more valuable. It's the same reasoning why, in PF1, you couldn't TWF with spikes and a greatsword; arbitrary balancing.

I'm not following why someone having an effect on ring is a problem compared to having the same effect on boots? EDIT: greatsword and spikes is apples to oranges, because it has quantifiable effect - more damage. I really don't see how is it gamebreaking to have fly on ring instead of boots.


necromental wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Again, this creates a paradigm where there is no point in having magical boots when I can just replicate those effects in a jewelry item. Boots of Speed is now obsoleted by Ring/Necklace of Speed, which is precisely why the "you can only wear 2 rings and 1 necklace" rule was in place: To make non-jewelry slot items more valuable. It's the same reasoning why, in PF1, you couldn't TWF with spikes and a greatsword; arbitrary balancing.
I'm not following why someone having an effect on ring is a problem compared to having the same effect on boots? EDIT: greatsword and spikes is apples to oranges, because it has quantifiable effect - more damage. I really don't see how is it gamebreaking to have fly on ring instead of boots.

It is also a hypothetical problem until we have "Rings of Speed" or "rings of fly." Like, do those items actually exist yet? Jewelry that replaces boots for example?


Captain Morgan wrote:
necromental wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Again, this creates a paradigm where there is no point in having magical boots when I can just replicate those effects in a jewelry item. Boots of Speed is now obsoleted by Ring/Necklace of Speed, which is precisely why the "you can only wear 2 rings and 1 necklace" rule was in place: To make non-jewelry slot items more valuable. It's the same reasoning why, in PF1, you couldn't TWF with spikes and a greatsword; arbitrary balancing.
I'm not following why someone having an effect on ring is a problem compared to having the same effect on boots? EDIT: greatsword and spikes is apples to oranges, because it has quantifiable effect - more damage. I really don't see how is it gamebreaking to have fly on ring instead of boots.
It is also a hypothetical problem until we have "Rings of Speed" or "rings of fly." Like, do those items actually exist yet? Jewelry that replaces boots for example?

We will have them if we have magic item creation. I really hope "it's not in the appropriate slot so it's more expensive" goes the way of the dodo. It made no sense ever.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, I agree that it's silly, but Darksol's post is basically exactly the logic behind it.


Captain Morgan wrote:
necromental wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Again, this creates a paradigm where there is no point in having magical boots when I can just replicate those effects in a jewelry item. Boots of Speed is now obsoleted by Ring/Necklace of Speed, which is precisely why the "you can only wear 2 rings and 1 necklace" rule was in place: To make non-jewelry slot items more valuable. It's the same reasoning why, in PF1, you couldn't TWF with spikes and a greatsword; arbitrary balancing.
I'm not following why someone having an effect on ring is a problem compared to having the same effect on boots? EDIT: greatsword and spikes is apples to oranges, because it has quantifiable effect - more damage. I really don't see how is it gamebreaking to have fly on ring instead of boots.
It is also a hypothetical problem until we have "Rings of Speed" or "rings of fly." Like, do those items actually exist yet? Jewelry that replaces boots for example?

To which I pose the question of "Why can't they?" If this is really such a non-problem, then why can't these items exist as a direct conversion?

PF1 and 3.X item design let rings and amulets contain all kinds of magic, whereas feet or hand slot items have specific limitations. If PF2 follows that same design (with nothing to suggest it won't), then having a seemingly endless amount of jewelry is infinitely more useful and versatile than slots that are limited in scale. Why have boots of flight when I can have a ring that does flight and so much more? It obsoletes the value of slots that aren't anywhere near as flexible by design because the amount of slots that have infinite flexibility are limited.


necromental wrote:
greatsword and spikes is apples to oranges, because it has quantifiable effect - more damage. I really don't see how is it gamebreaking to have fly on ring instead of boots.

It's not about game breaking (in a sense), it's about arbitrary rules principles. The reason greatsword + spikes doesn't work is because it skews a certain rule outside of it's intended scope. It was never game breaking (except maybe first level), nor was it really powerful.

It is really only apples to oranges because of the scale of change (they were both still arbitrary limitations). Now I can have 20 rings of speed instead of just a boots of speed and maybe 2-3 jewelry pieces of speed tops, and people don't see a problem with it.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
necromental wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Again, this creates a paradigm where there is no point in having magical boots when I can just replicate those effects in a jewelry item. Boots of Speed is now obsoleted by Ring/Necklace of Speed, which is precisely why the "you can only wear 2 rings and 1 necklace" rule was in place: To make non-jewelry slot items more valuable. It's the same reasoning why, in PF1, you couldn't TWF with spikes and a greatsword; arbitrary balancing.
I'm not following why someone having an effect on ring is a problem compared to having the same effect on boots? EDIT: greatsword and spikes is apples to oranges, because it has quantifiable effect - more damage. I really don't see how is it gamebreaking to have fly on ring instead of boots.
It is also a hypothetical problem until we have "Rings of Speed" or "rings of fly." Like, do those items actually exist yet? Jewelry that replaces boots for example?

To which I pose the question of "Why can't they?" If this is really such a non-problem, then why can't these items exist as a direct conversion?

PF1 and 3.X item design let rings and amulets contain all kinds of magic, whereas feet or hand slot items have specific limitations. If PF2 follows that same design (with nothing to suggest it won't), then having a seemingly endless amount of jewelry is infinitely more useful and versatile than slots that are limited in scale. Why have boots of flight when I can have a ring that does flight and so much more? It obsoletes the value of slots that aren't anywhere near as flexible by design because the amount of slots that have infinite flexibility are limited.

This isn't really true. Let's imagine we have unfettered item creation-- you can put any sort of enchantment on any sort of item. As such, we have the choice of boots of speed or a ring of speed. The downside of choosing the boots of speed is that you then can't wear, say, boots of flight. Except if you can make a ring of speed you can make a ring of flight. So if you choose boots of speed, you just buy the ring of flight and you get the same effect.

Ring of speed + ring of flight = boots of speed + ring of flight = ring of speed + boots of flight.

The only advantage to picking all rings in this scenario instead of decking your entire body out is that it leaves you more adaptable to loot you find, as opposed to loot you pick out. Like if you find find of boots of flight, you'll be in a better position if you bought the ring of speed instead of the boots of speed. But the point is you still want to use a set of boots, even if its only because found magic items are cheaper than buying magic items through resale.

And if we don't have unfettered item creation, then the scenario becomes moot, because there probably won't be a ring that does everything boots can do.


necromental wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
necromental wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Again, this creates a paradigm where there is no point in having magical boots when I can just replicate those effects in a jewelry item. Boots of Speed is now obsoleted by Ring/Necklace of Speed, which is precisely why the "you can only wear 2 rings and 1 necklace" rule was in place: To make non-jewelry slot items more valuable. It's the same reasoning why, in PF1, you couldn't TWF with spikes and a greatsword; arbitrary balancing.
I'm not following why someone having an effect on ring is a problem compared to having the same effect on boots? EDIT: greatsword and spikes is apples to oranges, because it has quantifiable effect - more damage. I really don't see how is it gamebreaking to have fly on ring instead of boots.
It is also a hypothetical problem until we have "Rings of Speed" or "rings of fly." Like, do those items actually exist yet? Jewelry that replaces boots for example?
We will have them if we have magic item creation. I really hope "it's not in the appropriate slot so it's more expensive" goes the way of the dodo. It made no sense ever.

"There's a mystical association between feet and movement, and therefore it's easier to enchant items associated with feet with movement magic. Sure, you can do a belt of flying, but that costs more because the enchantment process is harder and requires more materials."

Or you can just treat magic as a superpower that has no consistent rules to what's possible and can work however you want it to at a particular moment.


Captain Morgan wrote:

This isn't really true. Let's imagine we have unfettered item creation-- you can put any sort of enchantment on any sort of item. As such, we have the choice of boots of speed or a ring of speed. The downside of choosing the boots of speed is that you then can't wear, say, boots of flight. Except if you can make a ring of speed you can make a ring of flight. So if you choose boots of speed, you just buy the ring of flight and you get the same effect.

Ring of speed + ring of flight = boots of speed + ring of flight = ring of speed + boots of flight.

The only advantage to picking all rings in this scenario instead of decking your entire body out is that it leaves you more adaptable to loot you find, as opposed to loot you pick out. Like if you find find of boots of flight, you'll be in a better position if you bought the ring of speed instead of the boots of speed. But the point is you still want to use a set of boots, even if its only because found magic items are cheaper than buying magic items through resale.

And if we don't have unfettered item creation, then the scenario becomes moot, because there probably won't be a ring that does everything boots can do.

Rings and Amulets had unfettered item creation, other slots not so much, nothing suggests this has changed from PF1. And since there is no feasible limit to how many rings or amulets you can wear compared to boots or gloves, (and that's not dipping into things like nose-rings, face-rings, toe-rings, wristbands, earstuds, and so on), item crafters that don't create weapons or armor are shorting themselves when they create those non-stackable items. From a powergaming perspective, those other slot items have no purpose that a jewelry piece of the exact same type can't already solve, and since there's no listed limit based on how many items you can wear...yeah.

Also a thing to consider is that this heavily invalidates the flavor and cool-ness of these slotted items. A pair of boots that let you fly or move really fast is pretty cool, and there are mythological/fantasy stories that center around these kinds of things. But what's that, there's rings I can wear that can do both things at once, and I don't have to fight over what effects I want to have because rings can stack almost as much as I want? Screw that noise, rings/amulets for life! I don't need to sit there and make choices when there are slots that eliminate such a giant conundrum!

Except we consider that the past games had those choices in there for a reason; as arbitrary and "gamist" as they were, those choices were important to help balance out other aspects of the game. This "freeform item choice" rule we now have in place (which still has slots to a point) eliminates those important choices, and a solution such as "Resonance" is by no means congruent to the issue that jewelry slots are king and have virtually no limits compared to other slots.

But if we change the way these slots work (such as by making the limited slots more unique and powerful in their abilities while making the more stackable slots limited and unable to transfer abilities from other items to them), then I might be fine with a compromise such as the parenthetical. However, I remain skeptical based on lack of information as well as historical precedent that such a compromise will not be reached.

Even then, my concern is not necessarily with item creation, but with helping to create immersion. I highly doubt I (or other players) will waste the time and resources into item creation to get a meager benefit that, as of the playtest rules, cannot feasibly be taken advantage of in an appropriate timeframe. Conversely, the PF1 crafting rules were beyond broken, 3.X crafting rules made characters level slower (or even lose levels as a result), and I don't think you could even craft magic items prior to 3.X. And if you could, those rules were probably as bad as THAC0, or worse. Paizo should give this another shake and see if they can't make it more appropriate.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rings and Amulets had unfettered item creation, other slots not so much, nothing suggests this has changed from PF1.

I don't think anything suggests that it has stayed the same either; as far as I know we know basically nothing about what inventing new magic items will look like in PF2e, since there were no rules of the sort in the playtest.


MaxAstro wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rings and Amulets had unfettered item creation, other slots not so much, nothing suggests this has changed from PF1.
I don't think anything suggests that it has stayed the same either; as far as I know we know basically nothing about what inventing new magic items will look like in PF2e, since there were no rules of the sort in the playtest.

I'm confused, where was this even a thing in PF1 in the first place? All the stuff I've seen suggested this was an optional rule with a whole bunch of warnings attached to it to not do exactly what Darksol is talking about, and I've seen no mention of rings or amulets getting special treatment under this. .

Magic Item Creation:
Altering Existing Magic Items
The standard rules don't allow item creation feats to alter the physical nature of an item, its default size, its shape, or its magical properties. For example, there is no mechanism for using crafting feats to change a steel + 1 longsword into an adamantine + 1 longsword , a Large + 1 chain shirt into a Medium + 1 chain shirt , boots of speed into an amulet of speed , or a + 1 unholy longsword into a + 1 flaming shock longsword. Many GMs might decide that these kinds of transformations are impossible, beyond the scope of mortals, or not as cost-efficient as crafting a new item from scratch. Others might allow these sorts of transformations for free or a small surcharge. Keep in mind the following warnings.

Not all Item Slots Have Equal Value: This is true, even though it isn't expressed monetarily in the rules.

Some item slots are very common and are shared by many useful items (boots, belts, rings, and amulets in particular), while some slots are used by only a few items (such as body, chest, and eyes). Allowing a character to alter or craft an item for one of these underused slots is allowing the character to bypass built-in choices between popular items.

Some Abilities Are Assigned to Certain Slots: Some of the magic items in the standard rules are deliberately assigned to specific magic item slots for balance purposes, so that you have to make hard choices about what items to wear. In particular, the magic belts and circlets that give enhancement bonuses to ability scores are in this category—characters who want to enhance multiple physical or mental ability scores must pay extra for combination items like a belt of physical might or headband of mental prowess.

If there is a trend of all items of a particular type using a particular slot (such as items that grant physical ability score bonuses being belts or items that grant movement bonuses being boots), GMs should be hesitant to allow you to move those abilities to other slots; otherwise, they ignore these deliberate restrictions by cheaply spreading out these items over unused slots.

Classes Value Some Slots More Than Others: This is a combination of the two previous warnings. Because most belts enhance physical abilities, wizards rarely have need for standard belt items. This means a wizard can change an item that's useful to wizards into a belt and not have to worry about a future slot conflict by discovering a wizardly magic belt in a treasure hoard. Likewise, fighters have little use for most standard head items, so altering an existing fighter item to use the head slot means it has little risk of competition from found head slot items. GMs should consider carefully before allowing you to bypass these intentional, built-in item slot restrictions.

Respect Each Crafting Feat's Niche: You might be tempted to create rings that have charges like wands, or bracers with multiple charge-based effects like staves. A GM allowing this makes Craft Wondrous Item and Forge Ring even more versatile and powerful, and devalues Craft Staff and Craft Wand because those two feats can create only charged items.

Before allowing such an item, consider whether the reverse idea would be appropriate—if someone with Craft Wand can't make a wand of protection +1 that grants a deflection bonus like a ring of protection +1 , and if someone with Craft Staff can't make a handy haverstaff that stores items like a handy haversack, then Craft Wondrous Item and Forge Ring shouldn't be able to poach item types from the other feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As a completely off topic aside, I really want a handy haverstaff now. XD


Yeah, I'm pretty well with CaptainMorgan here. All of the item problems Darksol is bringing up happened in PF1 ONLY when using OPTIONAL rules that just ask for Power gaming stuff like this if not kept in check, which as CM states is warned about in the rule itself.

So it's not a particularly valid complaint in this case.


Captain Morgan wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rings and Amulets had unfettered item creation, other slots not so much, nothing suggests this has changed from PF1.
I don't think anything suggests that it has stayed the same either; as far as I know we know basically nothing about what inventing new magic items will look like in PF2e, since there were no rules of the sort in the playtest.

I'm confused, where was this even a thing in PF1 in the first place? All the stuff I've seen suggested this was an optional rule with a whole bunch of warnings attached to it to not do exactly what Darksol is talking about, and I've seen no mention of rings or amulets getting special treatment under this. .

** spoiler omitted **...

I remember seeing a table that explains what sort of effects we can expect from a given slot. I thought it was one of the numerous tables in the GMG, but a cursory review didn't reveal it to me. It might be from 3.X, but even if that's the case, PF1 is largely identical to those rules, and your quoted rules actually spell this concept out: Not all slots are created equally. Rings and Amulets could do all kinds of things, whereas other slots are more limited in their scope, and the current item listings greatly reflect that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
As a completely off topic aside, I really want a handy haverstaff now. XD

Great for those who really want to play out the murder hobo role. A magical stick with a wrapped cloth at the end that actually serves as an extradimensional space is really awesome.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
As a completely off topic aside, I really want a handy haverstaff now. XD
Great for those who really want to play out the murder hobo role. A magical stick with a wrapped cloth at the end that actually serves as an extradimensional space is really awesome.

Make a wand version of it, and call it a Kender Stick. Tapping items giving it a name, when you wave the stick and repeat the 'name' given, the item appears in your free hand.

[Did I fail to mention the items disappeared when they were given a name? I mean, I'm sure there was nothing malicious intended when I was giving everything a name! Come on, it was just a side effect!]


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


I remember seeing a table that explains what sort of effects we can expect from a given slot. I thought it was one of the numerous tables in the GMG, but a cursory review didn't reveal it to me. It might be from 3.X, but even if that's the case, PF1 is largely identical to those rules, and your quoted rules actually spell this concept out: Not all slots are created equally. Rings and Amulets could do all kinds of things, whereas other slots are more limited in their scope, and the current item listings greatly reflect that.

The bolded bit is true. The italics part isn't, or at bare minimum doesn't follow from the bolded bit. What it actually says is:

Quote:
Some item slots are very common and are shared by many useful items (boots, belts, rings, and amulets in particular), while some slots are used by only a few items (such as body, chest, and eyes).

Rings and amulets didn't do everything in PF1, and they don't in the playtest either. They did a lot of very useful things in PF1, but the big two are AC boosters. There is no ring of speed. Boots do a lot of unique things related to locomotion that rings simply don't.

Cloaks also get a lot of defensive options rings don't. For a long time there was no Ring of Resistance, though that changed for a specific recent AP for lore reasons. And even then, the ring of resistance was 50% more expensive than cloaks of resistance.

Even stuff like eyes tends to get unique options. Most perception boosting items wound up in the eye slot. (If they ever made a ring or amulet that did this, I don't know about it.)

In the playtest, many of these same things apply. Boots boost movement speed, acrobatics, and leaping. The stealth boosting items are mostly cloaks and armor. And we see examples that slot value is being kept in mind in different ways. An energy resistance rune is more expensive than a ring of energy resistance because the latter requires resonance and the former does not.

I think you might be letting too much 3.5 stuff enter into your thinking here-- I jumped straight to Pathfinder and a lot of what you are saying is baffling to me. I've never seen anything to support it, and I have spent a lot of time on Pathfinder.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / 5 Rules or Interactions that I feel need to be changed or clarified in the final product All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion